If You're Going To Forge A Fake Court Order To Delete Search Results, Maybe Don't Choose A Prenda Case

from the just-a-tip dept

Eugene Volokh, just recently teamed up with Paul Levy to track down who was behind a scam abusing the court system with forged or fraudulent court documents to get questionable or fake court orders to force Google to takedown links. It's a sketchy (and illegal) "reputation management" trick and it appears that at least a few folks are doing it. Volokh has just spotted another one and it comes with a Prenda Law twist. Volokh nicely sums up the background info leading up to this:

Ken Haas is a member of a New Britain (Conn.) city commission, the Commission on Conservation, appointed by Mayor Erin Stewart. Several months ago, he got into a public controversy with local activist Robert Berriault — allegedly, when someone got in a Facebook political spat with Haas, he responded by writing, “You do know I have access to ALL city records, including criminal and civil, right???” Berriault took that to be a threat that Haas would misuse that access for political purposes and wrote about this on the New Britain Independent site, as well as in a not-much-noticed change.org petition calling for Haas’s removal. (Since then, Berriault has announced his candidacy for the New Britain city council.)

And then, things get interesting. First, someone sent Google a notice asking it to take that Berriault story out of Google, and sent with it a "court order" in a supposed case between Haas and Berriault. You can see that "Haas v. Berriault" court order, but you may notice some oddities. The case claims to be in the "Sate" (not State) of Connecticut Superior Court:

It's also in front of a Judge John W. Darrah. And the case number is 1:13-cv-01569. So there are some problems here. The "Sate" typo is a give away, but there is no Judge Darrah on the Connecticut court. There is one in US federal court in Illinois. And if you look on PACER in the federal court records, and look at 1:13-cv-01569 in the Norther District of Illinois, it happens to be... a case that we covered. It was the infamous Paul Duffy defamation case. Duffy, the "third wheel" to John Steele and Paul Hansmeier in the Prenda Law scheme, had sued a bunch of online critics for defamation, but the case focused on Alan Cooper (John Steele's former house caretaker, whose signature Steele is accused of forging) and Cooper's lawyer, Paul Godfried. Either way, it looks like the document that someone used as the "template" (including the Judge Darrah signature) came from the Duffy v. Godfried case.

That was a crazy case for a whole bunch of reasons, but it also got a ton of public attention. If you're going to fake a court document, maybe don't take one that is on a widely known case that got a lot of attention and is partly about forging legal documents? It's like trying to pick a disguise to be inconspicuous in committing a crime, and dressing up like Hitler. People are going to notice, and they're going to remember.

As Volokh notes, it's not clear if Haas himself forged the document. It's entirely possible he hired a reputation management firm who did something along those lines. Or, maybe there's another explanation... but there really are only a small number of people who might benefit from this kind of thing:

Who submitted the forged order to Google? Commissioner Haas seems the likeliest intended beneficiary of the forgery and the takedown request, and his name (spelled as Ken Hass) was used on the takedown request. But it is of course possible that this was done by someone else, whether someone hired by Haas (with or without knowledge of what would be done) or someone else. I called Haas to ask about what happened here, but he told me he had no comment.

Anyway, forging a court order using a federal judge's signature from another case is, well, a bad idea. I'd imagine it's kind of worse than having someone publicly expose your threat to go through someone else's city records. In an update, Volokh also notes that Haas also went to the police about Berriault over his posts, only to have the cops explain that it's not a criminal act to state your opinion:

If you can't read that, the report is from the police explaining Haas' complaint about Berriault's internet posts and how he "just wants Berriault to lighten up" as well as a conversation with Berriault, followed by this:

I advised Haas that this was not a criminal act and that Berriault had every right to voice his opinion. I advised Haas that when you choose a career in politics that harsh criticism comes with the territory. Haas stated that he understood.

Of course, forging a court order with a federal judge's signature does seem a lot more like a criminal act. And someone appears to have done that.

Filed Under: connecticut, court order, eugene volokh, forgery, john darrah, ken haas, reputation management, robert berriault
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Team Prenda Loses Big Again: Told To Pay Over $650k For Bogus Defamation Lawsuit

from the another-shoe-drops dept

Welp, it looks like another bad day for Team Prenda. The law firm that went around uploading its own porn films and then shaking down people on the internet has had a bad few years in terms of courts blasting them for abusing the court system and ordering them to pay up for all sorts of awful things. Every few weeks it seems like we read about another loss for John Steele and Paul Hansmeier (the third "partner" in this mess, Paul Duffy, passed away). The latest is not only a pretty big hit, it's also a complete "own goal" by Team Prenda. This one wasn't in one of their crappy shakedown lawsuits where a defendant hit back. No, this was in the case where Prenda tried to sue all of its critics for defamation in both Illinois and Florida. The Florida case, filed by John Steele, was quickly dismissed once Steele realized it broke all kinds of rules. But the Illinois cases moved forward. There was some bouncing around between state and federal court, before the case was dismissed and some sanctions were added.

There's been some back and forth since then, but after the defendants, Alan Cooper and Paul Godfread, filed an anti-SLAPP against Prenda, and asked for sanctions, the court has now said that Prenda needs to pay up big time. You may recall that Cooper was a guy that Steele had take care of his vacation home in Minnesota, but whose signature Steele then forged on copyright transfer documents. Godfread was Cooper's lawyer, who brought all this out. The lawsuit against them (and a bunch of John Does) was a complete joke from the beginning. And despite Duffy insisting it had nothing whatsoever to do with Cooper saying that Prenda had forged his signature, that's what it was obviously about. Anyway, like so many Prenda things, this one backfired in a big, big way. To the tune of $674,206.94.

There are the original sanctions of $11,758.20 we mentioned above. Then there are attorneys' costs and fees for $162,448.74. And, finally, for good measure, Judge John Darrah tacked on $500,000 in punitive damages. Of course, whether or not Cooper and Goodfread will actually get paid is an open question. Duffy, as you may recall, is dead. And the other major members of Team Prenda, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier have been hit left and right with other judgments. Hansmeier declared bankruptcy and recently lost his law license. Steele's facing disciplinary action in Illinois, last we checked, and of course, lots of people are still waiting for the FBI. So, it's unclear how much they'll actually collect, but it's another case where Team Prenda's own hubris backfired amazingly. As Paul Hansmeier liked to say, "welcome to the big leagues."

Filed Under: alan cooper, anti-slapp, defamation, john darrah, john steele, paul duffy, paul godfread, paul hansmeier, sanctions, slapp
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Court Dismisses Prenda's Ridiculous Defamation Lawsuit Against Internet Critics & Guy Whose Signature It Forged

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

Remember Alan Cooper? This was the housekeeper for some cabins owned by John Steele, one of the lawyers behind Prenda Law, who suddenly found his name and (falsified) signature on a number of documents related to Prenda Law's copyright trolling shakedowns. Unhappy with this situation, Cooper sued John Steele and Prenda Law. In response, Prenda Law, Paul Duffy and John Steele all sued back... for defamation. Specifically, they filed three separate lawsuits, all against Alan Cooper, his lawyer Paul Godfread and a bunch of anonymous internet commenters. John Steele quickly dropped his lawsuit (apparently there were some serious procedural problems with it in Florida), but Duffy kept both his personal lawsuit and Prenda's lawsuit going -- despite the fact that the lawsuits were clearly crazy.

There was some back and forth as Duffy tried (and failed) to keep the lawsuits in state court (where crazy lawsuits tend to have a better chance), and last year the lawsuit that was technically filed by "Prenda" resulted in sanctions against Duffy. The lawsuit filed by Duffy himself, facing the same judge (John Darrah) has now been tossed out as well, siding with Cooper/Godfread over their claims that the lawsuit violated Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law. Darrah points out, in his analysis that Duffy appears to have just given up on the case, ignoring multiple requests by the court to present his arguments:

Plaintiffs have been given several chances at producing evidence to show that Godfread and Cooper’s statements are not entitled to immunity. The renewed motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP act was filed on October 30, 2014. Plaintiffs were given until December 1, 2014, to respond but did not do so. The ruling date was scheduled for February 17, 2015. On February 12, 2015, Plaintiffs were given until February 19, 2015 to respond but, again, did not do so. Throughout this case and the companion case, 14-cv-4391, Prenda and Duffy have ignored clear court orders and failed to fully brief motions. Plaintiffs have not produced clear and convincing evidence that Godfread and Cooper’s statements are not entitled to immunity. Therefore, Godfread and Cooper’s statements in the Minnesota lawsuit must be found to be immune from suit.

That was concerning the statements in Cooper's original lawsuit. How about the online commenters? Duffy doesn't fare well here either. As everyone pointed out at the time the lawsuit was filed, the comments of various anonymous online commenters were clearly statements of opinion, and thus not defamatory:

The Internet statements cited in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are opinions that do not contain an objectively verifiable assertion. Therefore, the statements are not libel per se but nonactionable opinions. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV is granted without prejudice as to Defendants John Does 1-10.

Judge Darrah also rejects the claims of "false light" pointing out that such a claim requires "actual malice" and Duffy didn't even bother to show how any statements involved actual malice. Darrah also rejects the claims of "civil conspiracy" and "tortious interference" noting that Duffy made "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." In other words: just because you say it, it doesn't make it so, Duffy.

Consider Duffy's weak attempt into intimidation through defamation lawsuits a failed endeavor.

Filed Under: alan cooper, defamation, dismissed, john darrah, paul duffy, paul godfread
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Judge Slams Prenda And Paul Duffy; Calls Them Out For Lying And 'Duplicitous Behavior'

from the not-going-well dept

We recently wrote about Judge John Darrah in Northern Illinois agreeing to sanction Paul Duffy of Prenda Law for some of his egregious behavior in filing a defamation lawsuit against Paul Godfread, Alan Cooper and a bunch of internet commenters. Today, Darrah released his ruling explaining all of this, and to put it kindly, he's not buying what Duffy is selling. Even without needing to get into the lack of an actual defamation case there is here, the judge has multiple reasons for issuing sanctions and completely rips Duffy to shreds for not just the questionable filing of the lawsuit in the case, but the attempt to cover up -- by flat out lying to the court -- how ridiculous the whole thing was.

As you may or may not recall, Duffy tried to keep the case in state court by doing a little trick whereby they added Paul Hansmeier's law firm, Alpha Law Firm, in an amended complaint (which would keep the case in state court since both the defendants and one of the plaintiffs would all be in Minnesota). Yet, as it quickly came out, the amended complaint was done through questionable means -- by apparently misrepresenting information to the court clerk, who told the court that Prenda's lawyer had misled her. So that attempt to keep it in state court totally failed, but Duffy then (on top of that) lied about the situation to the federal court.

Judge Darrah points basically all of this out and rips Duffy to shreds in the ruling. A few choice quotes:

When pressed, at the remand hearing on August 14, 2013, Duffy, counsel for Prenda, admitted he “filed substantially the same motion in the Southern District.”.... As discussed above, when asked what the Southern District of Illinois said about the motion, Duffy stated to the Court: “They denied the motion. They indicated - - the Court indicated that on the four corners of the complaint, it stated that it was a Minnesota corporation. However, the complaint also states that its principal place of business is in Minnesota.” .... However, the record reflects that the Southern District of Illinois Court said nothing of the sort. Duffy had the opportunity to address this lie in his response to the Motion for Sanctions and did not. To fabricate what a federal judge said in a ruling before another court falls well outside the bounds of proper advocacy and demonstrates a serious disregard for the judicial process.

Following this duplicitous behavior before the Court, Duffy sought to withdraw the renewed motion for remand, generously explaining that the reason for the withdrawal was “due to the apparent confusion arising from [the] motion.”...

[....] Prenda, through its counsel, Paul Duffy, filed a response to the Motion for Sanctions. In it, they argue that “Defendants have made no showing that attorney Hoerner was aware that service had been accomplished at the time he attempted to file the amended complaint.” (Resp. to Motion for Sanctions at 10 (emphasis added).) Demonstrating Hoerner was aware that service had been accomplished is not necessary to determine the deception inherent in Hoerner’s affirmative (and false) representation to Kent that service had not been accomplished.

Indeed, rather than explain their conduct, they seek to attack the form and procedure by which Defendants filed their Motion for Sanctions. Prenda contends it is entitled to the safe harbor provision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), which provides that a motion for sanctions may not be filed “if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service . . . .” Here, however, Prenda does nothing to explain or withdraw its assertions regarding what the Southern District of Illinois purportedly said about Alpha. Moreover, in its motion to withdraw the renewed motion for remand, Prenda continues to stand on its rejected assertions, insisting that “there was not diversity jurisdiction in this Court” and that Prenda “vehemently disagrees with representations made by Defendants . . . regarding its motion, but nevertheless due to the apparent confusion arising from Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff seeks to withdraw it.” .... The purpose of Rule 11 is to, in part, emphasize “the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 1993 Advisory Committee’s Notes (1993 Amendments) (emphasis added). Moreover, sanctions under Section 1927 and pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority are not subject to the safe harbor provision.

[....] Grasping at straws, Prenda next asserts Defendants failed to serve their Rule 11 motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and that “Duffy has never consented in writing (or otherwise) to accept service of papers via electronic means.” ... This is clearly rebutted by the docket itself, which indicates that Duffy is an E-Filer of the Northern District of Illinois. “[S]ubject to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(3), the Notice of Electronic Filing constitutes service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D) . . . as to all E-Filers in a case assigned to ECF.” .... Therefore, whether or not Duffy realizes it, as an E-Filer, he has accepted service by electronic means.

[....] In a final act of audacity, Prenda, in response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, contends that the “Court should award Prenda the fees it incurred in defending against Defendants’ patently frivolous motion.”

Needless to say, the court rules in favor of sanctions, noting Duffy's "unreasonable and vexatious conduct."

Filed Under: john darrah, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, sanctions
Companies: alpha law firm, prenda, prenda law